@schadjoe RB Fitz Toussaint is not necessarily going to be suspended for all or some of Bama season-opener; going through discipline now

Personally, I don't know how I feel about this. Granted, I'd love for him to be available, but if he is prosecuted for a DUI, I feel he should miss adequate game time. We hold ourselves to higher standards than MSU and the Chris Rucker-gate or ND and the Michael Floyd situation.

"...Are you basing that line on anything other than Brady Hoke's vague and noncommittal statement at the B1G Media Day?"

Brian Cook could have Tweeted the same thing, I suppose, but Brian is a better reporter. This is rediculous. I thought Twitter was down for most of the day. It's back, I see. With a vengeance.

Somebody who actually cares about what Joe Schad has to say might want to ask him for the detailed basis for his Tweet.

[Wow, that is a weird thing to type; a detailed basis for a Tweet, to appraise journalistic accuracy. It's like asking for a bibliography, for an episode of "Keeping up with the Kardashians."]

Edit. - Does anybody know how to put a question to Joe Schad directly? Like, 'What exactly do you know, Joe, that wasn't posted earlier in original-transcript form on MGoBlog hours before you sent your cryptic Tweet?' I don't see any email address for the guy at ESPN.com

This thread is almost instantly going up over 100+ posts for, what... a Tweet, based on... what... a non-decision by Brady Hoke. And now, with MGoBloggers of all description debating all manner of existential disciplinary issues, all presuming that Toussaint actually is going to play, based on a Tweet from Joe Schad that Toussaint "might" be available for Alabama (a Schad quote, not a Hoke quote) which was in turn based on Brady Hoke's comment that Toussaint was one of two players who was currently indefinitely suspended and no final decision had been made about specific game suspensions yet. Is this how mass-hysteria illness outbreaks start?

Nope. Not a fan of the the Dantonio/Kelly school of non-punitive punishments.

I don't like the possiblity that he might not miss game time. He should miss at least 2 games IMO. I definitely don't want to see winning games (not that I think UM will beat Bama even if Fitz plays the whole game, unfortunately) take precedence over doing the "right thing".

If he playsagainst Bama I'd be disappointed. A DUI is serious business and should be treated like it. If he plays, the question would be brought up, and rightfully so, if this were Joe Shmoe, would he have gotten the same treatment or not?

Is an actor who co starred in the Rush Hour series of movies along with the all time classic, Friday! I think you mean Chris L. Rucker who spent 8 days in jail only to fly to Iowa with MSU and play in that game. However, they still got destroyed...

I suppose this is one downside to scheduling such a big game as the first game of the season... all of the potential disciplinary actions accumulated over the off season increase the probability of suspended players for an important game.

I think he should be suspended for at least one game no matter who the opponent, but it sure would be easier to swallow if it were UMass or Air Force.

Honestly I think it might feel a little dirty if we play with Fitz. I trust Hoke to discipline Fitz appropriately but the public expectation is that he should be suspended at least a game (myself included) so I guess it'll feel a bit like we're sacrificing discipline for a W

One thing we all have to realize is that the details matter. Were the mitigating or extenuating circumstances? How does this fit the overall character of the young man? Are there other punishments that might suitably punish and deter future mistakes of this nature. I realize that we all want to see UM set a higher standard than the gross pragmatism of some other schools (cough:MSU:cough). I also realize that a strong example in this case may deter others. But justice is not done with cookie cutters. Let's see what Hoke decides to do and the explanation that he gives before we rush to judgment on his decision.

I think there is some ambiguity in the situation because, obviously, it is still working its way through the court system. No coach is going to come out and say 100% that a player is guilty and punished before the actual issue is addressed. My guess is that he is found guilty, he'll sit for a couple of games. If Fitz is acquitted or something else materializes that substantively changes the situation, Hoke will probably reevaluate it. But I'd be amazed if Fitz sees the field against Alabama is the DUI or something similar. sticks

punishment for Fitz. Or alternatively, setting a court date sometime after Bama and before ND, so that Hoke can't pull the trigger. Sorry, it's a bad decision by him but just being honest. Bama will be hard enough with him

Men representing the University of Michigan should never drive drunk. Just because others do it does not make it acceptable for Fitz. Plus, if you allow him to play, other players might get the notion that they can get caught driving drunk and avoid missing game time, so long as it's their first offense.

There are a lot of people who have had their lives ruined or completely taken away by drunk drivers. It is a serious crime that is brushed off too much by our society which exalts the "virtues" of alcohol and ignores the negative consequences.

Driving drunk is tantamount to walking around outside with a loaded gun, periodicially closing your eyes, spinning around and then discharging the gun. There is no guarantee that you'll harm someone, but there is still a pretty decent chance that you will.

NOTE: In case you were wondering, NO, I have not driven drunk (I don't consume alcohol at all), so I think I can safely take the moral high ground on this issue.

Hoke has been a good coach, and is a good coach. I trust his judgement. My personal feeling is that this kind of stuff has gone on forever. The punishment for a first offense is often quite different than that for repeated offenses. If this is the first time, well, I think Fitz could work to get out of the doghouse between now and opening day.

Honestly, doesn't every parent go through this? The punishment is partially determined by how the child responds to the discipline administered after the crime. If Fitz jumps through all the hoops, shows proper remorse, etc., etc., I'd be fine with him playing in the Alabama game, even if he doesn't start the game.

I do wish the Michigan blogosphere would sometimes get off their high horse, as regards MSU, ND, Ohio, NC, USC, etc., etc., etc. Some of the "Leaders and Best" stuff gets old.

We don't know the details, let the system figure it out. If it truly was .08 he won't get a DUI unless Kyle McClure is his attorney. That doesn't change what he may have done or make it any less serious but let's wait for the judge and jury before we are all the judge and jury.

I don't get how people want to compare Fitz on his first offense to the Floyd at ND and Rucker as MSU situations. They were repeat offenders, and those guys still missed zero game time.

Based on how Hoke has disciplined kids in his short time here I feel pretty comfortable trusting him to make the right decision. If the kid is a knucklehead who struggles with rules constantly..his punishment will be more severe then a kid who is going into his 4th year and just now had his 1st slip up.

I know I know a DUI is a serious thing... to think that a 22 year old star football player on summer vacation would be dumb enough to drink and get behind the wheel...that just never happens.

I would love to watch Fitz run all over bama but never at the expense of our integrity. I for one believe in our coach to do the right thing and if Fitz is guilty then we should do our best to win without him those first couple games. If i'm not mistaken aren't you the one awhile back that flipped out because someone had a thread of girls in bikini's on here and your wife grounded you or something?I'd much rather my kid see some scantily clad women than drive a little drunk. Maybe thats just me though.

Signed,

A Walmart Wolverine

Edit- Damn this was in response to StephenRKass but I'm a slo typer apparently..... Ohh well

I agree with most all you say. I don't want Fitz to play if it means we've lost integrity. In particular, Hoke probably has some internal rules and guidelines. If, for instance, he told the players, "if you drink and drive, you will sit at least the following game," well, then Fitz shouldn't play against Alabama. But I don't know what the internal rules Hoke has might be. From my perspective, Hoke and his staff have the right to sit down and determine how they discipline players. I do believe that Hoke largely needs to follow through, and that they need to consistently and fairly apply the rules to all the players, not just to some.

I will say, each situation is different. There's a kid down the block, 8 years old, who was suspended from school for two months (mid-April through the end of the year) because he had an air soft gun in his back pack for show and tell. Zero tolerance, you know. A couple years back, we got a phone call from my daughter's high school about drugs because she had ibuprofen for headaches. Zero tolerance, you know. I have little to nothing to do with the legal system, but I think most cops and judges will tell you that laws having penalties where no judicial discretion can be applied are usually bad laws.

As regards cheesecake and dui's, well duh, of course a dui is much more important than a few skeezy pics of beautiful women. And my main complaint wasn't about boobs in general, but gratuitous boobs posted at mgoblog, limiting my office use of mgoblog. Umm, it isn't like people don't know where to go on the Internet if they want boobs and more. Even at that, I'm getting tired of gratuitous posting of large Kate Upton cat daddy gifs.

No one knows the details of Fitz's DUI. Technically you can be given a DUI with a BAC of .01 so lets not jump the gun and say he should be out three weeks no matter what. Hoke's got good judgement and he knows what happened better than any of us. He wont let players play who dont deserve to play.

The .08 benchmark is not a minimum requirement for guilt, it is a benchmark at which there is a presumption of guilt/impairment. You can get pulled over, blow a .01, and as long as the jury/judge believe the driver was impaired you can still be convicted of DUI.

Since when does Hoke has an image of being strict? At some point we're going to have to accept it: Michigan is not morally better than any other major program.

Hell, media was joking about setting the over/under of time missed by Toussaint at one series.

I've lost any expectation that Michigan "doesn't tolerate" this kind of thing. Because we do. It's sad, I hate it, but I'm done fighting it and defending our program. If we were as good as we like to think we are, Toussaint would already be off the team. That's the image we think we have and it definitely isn't a true one.

Since when does Hoke not have an image of being strict? Can you actually point to anything he's done that makes you think he'll take issues of this magnitude lightly?

Also, you seem to equate this to morality, but I just see as doing what's best for the players and the program in the long run. Assuming Toussaint and Clark did what it seems they did, I think Hoke would be short-sighted to play them against Alabama.

Finally, I don't see a lot of people advocating kicking Toussaint off the team. Maybe that's "as good" as you'd like to think Michigan is, but be careful when speaking for the entire fan base. I know that's not the image I have of the program, but maybe that's just because I know kids who have been ticketed for DUI (an admittedly reckless and dangerous act) and were able to turn themselves around.

I don't think he has either way. He's done nothing that has made me think he's an extraordinary disciplinarian, nor has he done anything that has made me think that he's leinent. I think the jury is still out.

I think it was convenient that Stonum's year-long punishment coincided with an available redshirt and would have saved him until a year we really needed a receiver. It was convenient - I'm not saying that's why Hoke went with that punishment. I can't be in his head.

And, no, I don't think Fitz should be kicked off the team - but many fans like to brag about how we are "above" certain things. My point was that if we truly were above these things, then Fitz would have already been kicked off.

Right now I think it's hard to say we are any better than any other major program. I don't think we have the right to make fun of MSU or anyone else for anything right now - that's really my point. HOWEVA, if Hoke comes out strong and makes some kind of statement, then maybe we can reclaim our commitment to certain priorities. But, I expect Fitz to play, which doesn't really help that cause.

I think it's clear from most of the responses in this thread that Hoke is seen as strict on rule-breakers. You might argue that he hasn't done enough to deserve that reputation, but based on what we've seen I don't have a reason to doubt it.

Stonum's punishment certainly could have benefited the team this year if he hadn't messed up again, but don't forget the environment at the time. Hoke was going into his first year as a coach of a major program and had many fans questioning his ability to lead Michigan. It's unlikely that he anticipated the team would have such a good year. At the time I'm sure he was much more focused on having a successful initial campaign then stockpiling talent for 2012.

We still seem to disagree about kicking Toussaint off the team. My point is that I don't think dismissing him after his first offense is what people here are talking about when they say Michigan's staff isn't as lenient as other staffs. That's the most severe action Hoke could take against him and there is certainly some middle ground between that and what other schools have done. We'll have to wait and see what Hoke does with Toussaint and Clark, but I still think there are valid reasons to contrast Hoke's actions in his first year with those of some of the coaches of rival schools.

You are right about one thing, though; drunk driving gets all the press while fatigued driving, which can be just as dangerous, gets no mention. But that doesn't mean that drunk driving is any less terrible, it just means that fatigued/distracted driving is more terrible than we usually give it credit for.

I think this is just bull plop from Joe Schad. I doubt that the coaching staff would strengthen the weed policy then turn around and play a guy right after a DUI. Is there any precedent with this staff?

Granted, what he says is true, as Fitz is suspended indefinitely. It's just misleading. It implies that Hoke is considering playing him when that may or may not be true.

Would you really be "more upset" if the best players "get a pass"? It would bother you that people are treated unfairly? Or that Hoke doesn't take discipline seriously?

Obviously, we can hope that, as with other recent charges, there's something that we don't know about the charges which somehow makes them incorrect or ridiculous. But a DUI is deadly serious--if what it sounds like happened actually happened, I'd be very disappointed in my coach and my team if there weren't serious penalties--no matter what other punishment there is over the summer, that should include missing a couple of games at the start of the year.

As Michigan fans were proud of how our discipline compares to the SEC and Ohio. So we definitely put our players under a microscope. I forget exactly what the stipulations of our discipline procedure are though. I think it goes something like a percentage of playing time is suspended according to the offense and number of violations..

If its possible for Fitzgerald to return after preseason sanctions than I'm all for it and am sure Hoke is too.

Having him back for Bama is huge. But Brady can't give inches or he may risk letting these players run away with miles. The last thing we need is more repeat offenders.

Frank Clark's situation is bad, but what type of message would Hoke be sending to his guys if they thought he took drunk driving, a crime that puts both the offender and others at risk, lightly? To me it's just as punishable as theft. Even if most of us believe getting our MacBook Air stolen is a crime punishable by death.

Anyway, I'm confident he knows how to make the best decisions when it comes to disciplining the guys on his roster. Just let the law run its course and go from there.

As I think I posted else where, the testing process produces multiple simutanious samples. Half of the samples are made available to the defense for confirmation testing in a lab. A small percentage of the tests are invalidated for a number of reasons, inculding human error on the part of the test administrator. In the vast majority of cases, the result from the lab will differ slightly +-.01 is typical.

Let the legal system play out. I believe Fitz had a 0.12 BAC. If his record is clean that'll get reduced down to an impaired driving - NOT the same as his current charge. This would translate into a more lenient sentence and long-term implications.

Probably most importantly, a drinking problem should be assessed. If Fitz has a legitimate problem with alcohol, this needs to be addressed immediately. Or, if he had a night out with his buddies and made a stupid decision, this should also be addressed under its own consideration. But know that those are 2 very different reasons with very different short and long-term implications.

Lastly, I GUARANTEE that whatever punishment the a2 legal system gives Fitz, the punishment that Hoke delivers will be far more severe. If he has a clean record, he'll get a slap on the wrist. But that won't mean that Hoke won't punish him severely. Hoke can decide to play Fitz for 'Bama but still make him run everyday at 6, carry the bags, check grades, etc.

I guess, what I'm getting at is that Fitz made a big mistake but this will hopefully be a learning experience. A lot of people have gotten DUIs, then recognized a problem and straightened up their act (not all of course) and this can definitely turn into a positive. I don't know if he should or shouldn't play against 'Bama but before we rush to judgement w/o having any facts about that night or his personal history, we really can't fairly assess what's going on.

when I drank too many 20 years ago, I paid the price, and I have been diligent ever since. There are plenty of appropriate punishments other than being held out of the Alabama game. I don't understand how that is believed to be the only legitimate price that can be paid. Let's see what the legal system determines his crime is, what Hoke believes the appropriate punishment is and then compare ourselves to Ohio and MSU.

Let's let it play out day at a time before coming to judgement. It's a first time offence, and seems like the only time I've heard about Fitz getting into trouble at all, so why rush to judgement. There was no malicious intent, just plain ol' stupitidty, so I'm inclined to believe there are other punishment options that don't include missing game time.

It's possible the court case might not be resolved by the first game on September 1st. Every man deserves his day in court to plead and defend himself if he so chooses. Once and if he enters a guilty plea or is convicted then its fair to take action beyond the intial indefinate suspension.

If one more Wolverine runs afowl of the lawthough it will bring new meaning to playing in The Big House.

I don't really know how anyone can say how harshly Fitz should be punished until we hear more details of what went down. For instance, if he really was just stopped at a checkpoint, there may be mitigating factors. To go off and say he needs to be suspended for x number of games seem a bit premature. I say let the details come forth and go from there. Has anyone thought maybe there is something we don't know if Coach Hoke is thinking of allowing him to play? It seems he would be immediately suspended if it was an outrageous DUI. These things have a way of being dropped down when other factors are involved. I realize we all want UM to be held to a higher standard, but quite honestly, no one here knows exactly what went down.

I think Stonum might have already had a strike before Hoke got there. I know that Hoke had Stonum coming in early to do sleds and things like that. That's the type of thing that I expect that he's making Fitz and Clark do. They have to prove to the rest of the team that they want to be back. It's that accountability thing again.

I'll wait and see with Hoke's punishment. I'm not against them getting actually suspended and missing games, but if Hoke feels that the guys do their work to get themselves back into a position to play against Bama, I'm not against that either.

Strike one: Stonum was suspended for one game immediately after his first drunk driving arrest. Well before any plea agreement or conviction. The clear basis being "violation of team rules." Stonum was a minor, and it happened during the football season.

Stonum was later dragged back in front of the 15th District Court Judge Steven Pope, wherein they recounted his near-complete failure to comply with the civil terms of his original sentence. This was before his fourth and latest alcohol arrest (I think that there were some MIP arrests along the way, early on, as well). Even Stonum's first drunk driving offense sounded like something out of a Jerry Bruckheimer movie; speeding up South University, narrowly missing pedestrians and parked cars.

By the time Stonum was dismissed form the team by Hoke, it was effectively his eighth, ninth or tenth strike. Or more, counting all of the individual probation violations.

I think if he and Hoke work out punishment together then let him play. It's his first time in either Hoke or RRs doghouse, everyone messes up some time. I'm sure he regrets his decision and will pay harsh penalties like pushing a weight around the practice field, cleaning up the locker room, spending extra time at Mott, and possibly speaking to some youth about making bad choices. Let the coaches and courts decide the punishment for the crime.

I don't think Fitz should be suspended. Sober drivers are responsible for more fatal accidents than drunk drivers. That's a fact and can't be argued. The only reason sober driving is legal is because it's a form of population control that the general public doesn't realize. Joking!

I have this image of Hoke's program being more than about football. I want the core values of this program to be about something other than winning a game. That's how Hoke has came off since he got here, and I don't want that to change.

If he commits the DUI in September, late August, then sitting him makes all the sense in the world. But there are various punishments/disciplinary actions that might be meted out in the meantime that would make playing him less unreasonable. Hoke would need to lay out this line hard and early to make the case, of course, and the need to wait out how the legal issues unfold is another factor. . .

I feel more paranoid about us getting stomped than I do about Fitz not playing. I'm still not sure Brandon did us any favors by scheduling this game. Even a close loss may just get written off as Alabama going easy on Michigan. And though a loss will not cause huge harm to the program, I'm not to keen to hear everyone say that we're on the right track, give us a year or two, etc.

With Denard and Fitz I think we stand at least a chance of surprising 'em. If Fitz doesn't play we also could be looking back and saying his DUI derailed Denard's Heisman chances from the start. Hypotheticals, I know. . .

Hoke care more about the students than he does about football. So trust whatever decision he makes. If he plays, then know that Hoke feels comfortable that Fitz corrected whatever deficiencies caused this. No worries guys.

How in the world are guys getting DUIs in Ann Arbor? One of the best parts about the town is that you don't need to drive anywhere for the most part and there are countless bars/parties within a short stroll from your apartment. And if you do need a lift, how can a guy with 100+ teammates, giant support staff, and thousands of fellow students who would gladly bend over backwards to help the guy get home not find a safe/sober ride?

It seems like the athletic department or the coaching staff or just the team members themselves could solve this problem immediately and very easily, but instead we keep having to deal with Grady, Stonum, and now Fitz suffering both the on and off field consequences of these things.

Honestly, I am sick of reading all these posts of what Fitz SHOULD get, and how you will be SOOOO disappointed if he doesn't get suspended.

Like any of you know anything. We should trust that the coaching staff will get ALL the facts (we have very few), and make the right decision, whether is no time missed, or 6 games, or whatever.

Coach Hoke has done nothing but exemplify integrity and good discretion with dicipline so far with player dicipline and we should just trust that whatever Fitz gets is the right call, even if we don't get all the facts.

I guarantee Hoke just gave his typical vague coachspeak, and it got wildly misinterpreted. Hoke doesn't give out relevant information to the media for even the most minor of details, no way in hell he gives anything for this.

I'm torn. Part of me thinks about Floyd, Rucker, etc. and how they didn't miss any games despite being 3 time losers, and thinks, "everyone else is doing it...why shouldn't we?" But then the other part of me, the near 40 year old alumnus of the University of Michigan, thinks "we're Michigan fergodsake, we do things different, we do things the RIGHT way.

That being said, I trust Hoke to know what the "right way" is for the program. I won't complain either way. But, I really do want to see Fitz and Denard on that field together on Sept. 1st.

It'd really be appalling if he played w/o serving a *lengthy* suspension first. Blowing a .12 means you're seriously impaired, i.e. you're needlessly and foolishly putting lives at risk. It is unfortunate that our legal system doesn't take this more seriously, but Hoke sure as hell should.

"Blowing a .12 means you are seriously impaired." This is not necessarily true. The impact of alcohol on a individual varies widely at any given BAC. Some poeple are trashed at .05 others, based on objective testing, are minimally impaired or unimpared at .15.

Before MADD, DADD, and SADD, BAC levels were guidelines that were intended to protect drivers and indicate when law enforcement should assess the level of impairment. The issue was impairment, not some politically established BAC.

I think that Hoke should and probably will take this very seriously. Further I would expect that Hoke has privately determined exactly what happened and has already decided and implemented a response. Hoke will also be careful not to influence public perception before Fitz has run the legal gauntlet. Hoke has implied that how Fitz (and Clark) respond to the corrective actions that have been put in place have a lot to do with the ultimate result.

There is still much to play out in Fitz's case and these decision's involve multiple variables, but I think he should be suspended at least one game if the charges are correct. Michigan should lead the entire NCAA in character and integrity, which I think Hoke did with his corrective actions last years.

in integrity. Maybe there are some extenuating circumstances that would lessen Fitz' punishment, but that seems hard to believe. Either Hoke should have a hell of a justification for not suspending him for the Bama game, or he's got to sit at least that game out. And I don't wanna hear anything about 'internal team matter' either. Especially in the wake of PSU, this is where Hoke has total control of demonstrating leadership.

Hoke is going to act like a father in this situation like he does at all other times throughout this program, and like a parent, its going to have to be his judgement on the actual details and after effects of this charge. There is no way that any of his here know even close to the necessary amount of information to make an appropriate punishment. I know I don't know Fitz at all to the point where I think this is a common action in his personality, and I certainly do not have a right to question his relationship with Hoke and the rest of the program. If the coaching staff feels like the punishment given to him (by the courts, the staff, the school, etc.) are appropriate enough that there is no need for him to miss any games, then who are we to question it.

As a second thought, and this is more about general sports punishments. Isn't the goal after an incident like this to provide a proper punishment, but still make sure that the individuals activities and actions after the event are aimed towards recovering from their mistake and leading to a better future overall? Why would suspending him (or any athlete for that matter) for a game, especially one as big as this one, be helpful to his recovery? I get that it would convince him to not do it again, but aren't there other punishments that would do the same? Ones that wouldn't have him miss an opportunity to showcase his talents on possibly the biggest non bowl/championship game of the year. If he misses this game, it could have a negative affect on his draft stock which could contradict the goal of him being a success in life. The past is the past, and as long as Hoke and Fitz's superiors feel like he has truly learned from the experience, I am not at all against him not missing a game for this first time offence.

Jesus, nothing bad happened. You're all acting like he mowed down a troop of girl scouts. Sure, "maybe" he could've killed someone. Maybe the moon is really a giant coconut cream pie and one day we'll all feast. We deal in reality, and what happened is that he made a poor decision. That's it. No one was hurt, no cars were wrecked, no property was destroyed. He has an otherwise clean record. Chalk it up to lesson learned - just because you feel fine doesn't mean you are, have him running the field and stairs for the next month, get him mandatory counseling on drug/alcohol abuse, and have him do some community service. If all criteria are met satisfactorily, he's good to go. If not, re-evaluate.

I really need to know the details before forming any kind of opinion on this. The way drunk drivers are sometimes entrapped and the sometimes ludicrous punishments that are enforced is an issue I take umbrage with. We place all DUIs under the same umbrella, but are being blackout drunk and plowing your car headlong into a children's street hockey game and being pulled over for DWB, subjected to a breathalyzer and narrowly missing an arbitrary mark at all similar? I'm not saying either of these are what happened in Fitzy's case, merely that DUIs can range on the moral outrage scale from completely despicable to completely null.

Wasn't his BAC .12? The legal limit in Michigan, like Wisconsin, is .08. His license will be revoked, he'll pay some fines that can bankrupt a college undergrad, and he may have to go to Group Dynamics.

I don't think I really understand the stance of most people here on this kind of thing. I didn't understand the outrage over the Michael Floyd thing, and I don't understand the "he MUST miss several weeks" thing for this. Why is it a necessity that he must miss games for this? You have to consider the following things when determining a punishment:

1) Is this a first offense?

2) How did he respond when confronted, punished, etc?

3) What were the circumstances surrounding the incident?

4) How strong of a punishment is necessary to sufficiently communicate that this can never happen again?

If you get the answer to #1-3 and you feel the answer to #4 is something less severe than missing a game, then that's fine with me. Hoke seems like a very smart guy who handles his players well, so I'd trust his judgment. He's a nice blend between no-nonsense but also very human. If he thinks game suspension, great, if not, that's fine with me too because I trust hiim to do the due diligence on the above things. Shrug.

Everyone has an opinion on this, it seems. But in the end it is up to Coach Hoke to make a decision, and Coach Hoke has shown himself to be a class act and a true Michigan Man. So I know he will make the right decision and we should all support whatever decision that is.

Right on, I think people close to the situation that know Ftiz and know the exact details are better judges of what the punishment should be. I will be happy to let the coaching staff be the judge of that since they are privy to the facts and the character of player. Hoke and company have not been overly light in past, and I don't see a reason to doubt the coaching staff's judgement.